profplump:Biological Ali: They had cordoned off a specific area and had very good reason to believe he was in there

First, you need to define "specific area" more more distinctly for that to have any meaning. South Dakota is a "specific area" -- it has discrete, well-known borders -- but it's clearly not a reasonable area for this sort of search. At least part of the disagreement about whether or not this was reasonable has to do with what you consider a reasonable size for a warrantless search area.

Second, "had very good reason to believe" is not entirely clear. Certainly they had some reason to be believe he was in the search area, but again the disagreement here is related to whether or not people believe that reason was in fact "very good" more than whether police can sometimes search without a warrant.

These things don't have distinct definitions - the whole point is that they're judgment calls made by the police to carry out immediate action based on what they believe to be exigent circumstances. There are two types of exigent circumstances that justify this kind of action: to enforce criminal law (that is, to arrest a suspect or prevent him from fleeing) and to prevent individuals or property from being harmed. Both of these conditions would have been satisfied, and no court is going to find (if anybody had complained, which they didn't) that exigent circumstances were not present.

The court is obviously going to recognize the immediate danger posed by the suspect, as well as the difference between "South Dakota" and a specific neighbourhood that had been cordoned off after the suspect was known to be there. You can disagree with this, of course - insofar as you still have an inalienable right to be wrong on the internet.

There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

Nobody here is saying the police didn't have the authority to search the one house they had probable cause--which is a stricter test than reasonable suspicion--to believe contained the asshole. We're saying they didn't have the authority to search four blocks worth of houses.

What I posted was from an actual State Supreme Court decision. What you posted wasn't from my "citation"; it was from Wikipedia's own paragraph which tried to explain things in a dumbed-down manner. Even then, the whole point is that only one out of a number of very generally-defined circumstances need to be present in order for there to be exigent circumstances.

If you insist on talking about something you clearly know very little about, the least you could do is approach the discussion with a sense of open-minded curiosity rather than continuing to make assertions that have no basis in actual fact.

Biological Ali:profplump: Biological Ali: They had cordoned off a specific area and had very good reason to believe he was in there

First, you need to define "specific area" more more distinctly for that to have any meaning. South Dakota is a "specific area" -- it has discrete, well-known borders -- but it's clearly not a reasonable area for this sort of search. At least part of the disagreement about whether or not this was reasonable has to do with what you consider a reasonable size for a warrantless search area.

Second, "had very good reason to believe" is not entirely clear. Certainly they had some reason to be believe he was in the search area, but again the disagreement here is related to whether or not people believe that reason was in fact "very good" more than whether police can sometimes search without a warrant.

These things don't have distinct definitions - the whole point is that they're judgment calls made by the police to carry out immediate action based on what they believe to be exigent circumstances. There are two types of exigent circumstances that justify this kind of action: to enforce criminal law (that is, to arrest a suspect or prevent him from fleeing)

This is either willfully wrong, or you misstated it badly. There is no exception to enforce criminal law, or there would be no such thing as warrants.

and to prevent individuals or property from being harmed. Both of these conditions would have been satisfied, and no court is going to find (if anybody had complained, which they didn't) that exigent circumstances were not present.

While this is absolutely right as it applies to one house, it is not an obvious, foregone conclusion that it applies to a large number of houses. Unless, of course, you have a citation of precedent from a district or supreme court case.Also, the fact that no residents complained doesn't mean it's none of my damned business, it only means nobody who has standing to bring a court case has complained yet.

The court is obviously going to recognize the immediate danger posed by the suspect,

True

as well as the difference between "South Dakota" and a specific neighbourhood that had been cordoned off

Possibly true, but non-obvious

after the suspect was known to be there.

Um, can you define "known"?

You can disagree with this, of course - insofar as you still have an inalienable right to be wrong on the internet.

No, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with this. I can't make a claim that the court wouldn't agree with you, but to my knowledge there isn't precedent for large, multi-home warrantless searches like this, and it damned sure isn't obvious. I'd like some precedent set, as a matter of fact. As I said earlier, I'd really like some lawyers to go pro bono and bring a suit on behalf of a resident for damages of $1 just to set the rules for the future. I'd like it appealed one way or the other all the way to the Supremes.

Biological Ali:What I posted was from an actual State Supreme Court decision. What you posted wasn't from my "citation"; it was from Wikipedia's own paragraph which tried to explain things in a dumbed-down manner. Even then, the whole point is that only one out of a number of very generally-defined circumstances need to be present in order for there to be exigent circumstances.

Are you being willfully obtuse here? Nobody, not even the craziest Libertarian poster, is claiming that the police would have needed a warrant to search one house that they had probable cause to believe asshole jr. was in. Nothing you've said has shown that the same logic applies to a multi-house area other than "because I said so".

If you insist on talking about something you clearly know very little about, the least you could do is approach the discussion with a sense of open-minded curiosity rather than continuing to make assertions that have no basis in actual fact.

Funny. If you're going to be dismissive of what I have to say, the least you could do is acknowledge that I do, in fact, know something about the Fourth. If you think my point is retarded, you're free to say so, but don't pretend I'm just making sh*t up here. I haven't claimed that you don't know what you're talking about; just that you're wrong.

jaytkay:IntertubeUser: I suspect that the only reason they were unsuccessful in killing him was because the media was all over that neighborhood before they had a chance.

You're condemning the police for your imaginary view of them.

Which part is imaginary? The part where law enforcement opened fire on an unarmed suspect in a residential neighborhood? Or the part where they claimed that Tsarnaev fired upon them? Or the part that cops lie?

And you still owe the Boston Police a major apology. Either do so in your next post, or welcome to the ignore list.

Nobody is spreading blatant lies about police work here, damnit. You aren't remotely new here, so you've seen all the same news stories the rest of us have. Cops are sometimes unprofessional, vindictive bullies. When a cop is killed, they tend to be more unprofessional and more vindictive. Sometimes they lie about it. It may be paranoia to assume that a city full of cops act like the "bad apples" we see in the news, but it is naivety to assume they don't. Trust but verify, as the man says.

And, no, I'm sorry. Nobody in a free country "owes the police a major apology" for anything. F*ck that. The police, by and large, are not heroes of superhuman stature. The police are our employees, given a sacred trust. A trust that they often abuse. We have a civic duty to make sure they are doing their jobs within the bounds of their authority. We have a civic duty--one which we as a nation fail miserably at--to ensure that anyone in a position of power who abuses that power be punished severely. The authoritarians and the badge-lickers among us are quick to say that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear, so why does that logic not apply to the police?

Also, unlike the other poster raising my blood pressure in this thread, you have not even attempted to justify your assertions that the police conducted themselves properly and within their authority. Why is that, exactly?

jaytkay:ZOMG all the exact details were not known immediately in a chaotic situation!!!

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!

More like "kill them and then the details can be arranged to fit whatever narrative emerges that's most palatable to the collection of government agencies involved without the complication of fact-checkable testimony."

TopoGigo:This is either willfully wrong, or you misstated it badly. There is no exception to enforce criminal law, or there would be no such thing as warrants.

I stated it just fine. Here's how the other court case mentioned over there states it:

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.

There's nothing there about trails of blood or about the police having to see the guy run into one specific house - the only thing is that the police have to have a reasonable belief that their actions were necessary to prevent the suspect from escaping or to prevent people from being harmed.

TopoGigo:as well as the difference between "South Dakota" and a specific neighbourhood that had been cordoned off

Possibly true, but non-obvious

No - that is, in fact, very obvious. It would only be "non-obvious" to someone who has no familiarity whatsoever with how courts judge the reasonableness of police actions.

You realize that the police not only saw the suspects in Watertown but had an actual shootout with them, right? The one which resulted in one suspect getting killed and the other fleeing and going into hiding?

TopoGigo:Are you being willfully obtuse here? Nobody, not even the craziest Libertarian poster, is claiming that the police would have needed a warrant to search one house that they had probable cause to believe asshole jr. was in. Nothing you've said has shown that the same logic applies to a multi-house area other than "because I said so".

What I've been trying to explain to you is that there are exceptions to the requirement to get a warrant that have nothing to do with "probable cause" as the term is commonly understood. Obviously a warrant is not needed if police have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed right then, or that evidence of a crime is about to be destroyed - everybody knows that. What you don't seem to have gotten is that this is just one of several exigent circumstances in which police can justifiably take immediate action without a warrant. Another is the police taking action to prevent a suspect (that they are already in search of and who knows that he's being searched for) from escaping. Another is the police taking action to prevent people or property from being harmed. Both of these would have been satisfied here.

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this. It's my right to have untrained, panicked, inept government gunmen pointing assault weapons at my face.

Good. So don't have that done to yourself.

How would you propose to manage that? What state doesn't have an insane, criminal gang with badges?

Biological Ali:TopoGigo: This is either willfully wrong, or you misstated it badly. There is no exception to enforce criminal law, or there would be no such thing as warrants.

I stated it just fine. Here's how the other court case mentioned over there states it:

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.

Again, that's true, with limitations on the "escape" or "frustration" parts. (The police can't just bust in to prevent the escape of a fugitive if it's outside the scope of a "hot pursuit" situation or the suspect is unusually dangerous. You can easily apply the "reasonable" standard to that: most suspects trying to escape don't burrow into the earth; they go outside where the police already are. If that specific opinion says what it appears to, it's a little outside the norm. The "frustrating...efforts" is vague enough to be useless. But that's not what you said. You claimed an exception to enforce criminal law, which would be any damn thing they wanted to do.

There's nothing there about trails of blood or about the police having to see the guy run into one specific house - the only thing is that the police have to have a reasonable belief that their actions were necessary to prevent the suspect from escaping or to prevent people from being harmed.

TopoGigo: as well as the difference between "South Dakota" and a specific neighbourhood that had been cordoned off

Possibly true, but non-obvious

No - that is, in fact, very obvious. It would only be "non-obvious" to someone who has no familiarity whatsoever with how courts judge the reasonableness of police actions.

Again, you're ignoring the magnitude. A search of one house is obviously reasonable. A search of a million houses is obviously unreasonable. Somewhere between the two numbers is a line. It is not obvious to someone who isn't a lawyer specializing in this area where that line is. The courts do tend to fall pretty heavily on the side of police business, especially in areas where (in my opinion) waiting for a warrant would be a pain in the ass rather than a real detriment, or where destruction of evidence is concerned. I don't believe destruction of evidence qualifies as an exigent circumstance, but the courts largely disagree with me. The point stands, though, unless you can show me otherwise that this situation has not been addressed by the courts. They have very clearly come down on the side of property owners in cases of separate apartments or rooms in fraternity houses involving drugs, but I don't know of anything involving dangerous assholes.

TopoGigo: after the suspect was known to be there.

Um, can you define "known"?

You realize that the police not only saw the suspects in Watertown but had an actual shootout with them, right? The one which resulted in one suspect getting killed and the other fleeing and going into hiding?

Now you can only narrow it down to a city? Good lord, man. That doesn't satisfy any reasonable definition of "knowing where he was" where searches of houses are concerned. Unless you're saying that police had the right to conduct house-to-house searches in an entire city of 32,000 people, that is. I understand they had a neighborhood cordoned off, but are you stating (without a factual basis, as far as Google tells me) that he was indeed found in that neighborhood later?

TopoGigo: Are you being willfully obtuse here? Nobody, not even the craziest Libertarian poster, is claiming that the police would have needed a warrant to search one house that they had probable cause to believe asshole jr. was in. Nothing you've said has shown that the same logic applies to a multi-house area other than "because I said so".

What I've been trying to explain to you is that there are exceptions to the requirement to get a warrant that have nothing to do with "probable cause" as the term is commonly understood.

Probable cause "as commonly understood" has two meanings. I know that the law doesn't usually use the words "probable cause" for exceptions to the requirements for a warrant, but the police procedurals on TV do, so that's the general understanding of those words. Maybe I shouldn't be contributing to ignorance of lawyer-ese, but it seemed better to use the term that most people would recognize.

Obviously a warrant is not needed if police have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed right then, or that evidence of a crime is about to be destroyed - everybody knows that. What you don't seem to have gotten is that this is just one of several exigent circumstances in which police can justifiably take immediate action without a warrant. Another is the police taking action to prevent a suspect (that they are already in search of and who knows that he's being searched for) from escaping. Another is the police taking action to prevent people or property from being harmed. Both of these would have been satisfied here.

You keep repeating things that I have already agreed with. I get it. You don't seem to get the fact that there is a difference between one house and four blocks. I am not a lawyer, nor am I a judge, so I can't say what the courts would consider reasonable in that situation. I can say that it exceeds any semblance of reasonable behavior as I see it. In fact, I'm sorely tempted to go on a research vacation so I can cite you case law. I really don't have time to do that without the wife giving me the stink-eye from the other room, but I may just do it anyway.

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this. It's my right to have untrained, panicked, inept government gunmen pointing assault weapons at my face.

Good. So don't have that done to yourself. How would you propose to manage that? What state doesn't have an insane, criminal gang with badges?

OK, after some cursory research, it appears that the level of certainty of finding the person inside his/her own home to justify a warrantless search has been decided several ways over the last 30 years. One listed only a "reason to believe" while two more listed "probable cause". The majority of cases, however used the "reasonable suspicion" test. They have consistently been harsher on looking for a suspect in a third-party houses. When dealing with a large number of third-party houses, I don't believe you could call that "reasonable suspicion".

Biological Ali:TopoGigo: Are you being willfully obtuse here? Nobody, not even the craziest Libertarian poster, is claiming that the police would have needed a warrant to search one house that they had probable cause to believe asshole jr. was in. Nothing you've said has shown that the same logic applies to a multi-house area other than "because I said so".

What I've been trying to explain to you is that there are exceptions to the requirement to get a warrant that have nothing to do with "probable cause" as the term is commonly understood. Obviously a warrant is not needed if police have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed right then, or that evidence of a crime is about to be destroyed - everybody knows that. What you don't seem to have gotten is that this is just one of several exigent circumstances in which police can justifiably take immediate action without a warrant. Another is the police taking action to prevent a suspect (that they are already in search of and who knows that he's being searched for) from escaping. Another is the police taking action to prevent people or property from being harmed. Both of these would have been satisfied here.

I haven't been following this conversation or your references closely (sorry, busy day) but I must say that this "massive search" thing rubs me the wrong way big-time. Seems to go all RAPE RAPE on the Bill of Rights.

You say there are "exceptions" - some of which may seem reasonable and understandable - the one in question here of course is "seeking a fugitive - a potentially dangerous SUSPECTED felon", so you seem to feel that a door-to-door, warrantless search by heavily armed paramilitary-style units - with occupants being herded out at gunpoint - hands raised - is "warranted" (great pun, eh?), and is supported by (some law somewhere? some precedent?).

Hundreds of homes were searched fruitlessly. Thousands of people were forced from their homes at gunpoint - and it seems there is little doubt that "other crimes" were stumbled upon in the process: It seems almost guaranteed that someone's indoor marijuana garden would have been "discovered", maybe a "meth lab", or other illegal activities.

Question: Is the "accidental discovery" of such illegal operations prosecutable? Can the evidence uncovered during said warantless, broad "sweeps" be used against the suspects?

I thought it was understood that I was referring to the specific neighbourhood in Watertown where the shootout occurred. They didn't cordon off the entire city; it was a very small area.

TopoGigo:OK, after some cursory research, it appears that the level of certainty of finding the person inside his/her own home to justify a warrantless search has been decided several ways over the last 30 years. One listed only a "reason to believe" while two more listed "probable cause". The majority of cases, however used the "reasonable suspicion" test. They have consistently been harsher on looking for a suspect in a third-party houses. When dealing with a large number of third-party houses, I don't believe you could call that "reasonable suspicion".

Even in the (highly, highly unlikely) event that the need to apprehend a fleeing suspect wouldn't have risen to the level of "exigent circumstance", the need to protect people and property from harm most certainly would have. This includes not just locating the suspect himself, but also ensuring that there aren't any bombs or other dangerous materials in the area that he was known to be in.

This is what I've been trying to get through to you. You seem to be under the impression that there is only one kind of exception to the general requirement to get a warrant, and your entire argument seems to be based on suggesting that this one exception was, perhaps, maybe, not satisfied here. There are, however, a number of exceptions - each of which are generally defined with no bright lines to say that the police have obviously failed to meet them - and only one (1) needs to be satisfied in order for there to be exigent circumstances present.

Nobody is going to make any complaint, and no case is going to arise out of this, because of how obvious it is that there is no case to be made against how the police acted here.

Amos Quito:Question: Is the "accidental discovery" of such illegal operations prosecutable? Can the evidence uncovered during said warantless, broad "sweeps" be used against the suspects?

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be yes - the general rule is that any evidence uncovered during proper police activity is admissible, and the police taking immediate action during clearly exigent circumstances would be more or less guaranteed to be considered as such.

Biological Ali:Amos Quito: Question: Is the "accidental discovery" of such illegal operations prosecutable? Can the evidence uncovered during said warantless, broad "sweeps" be used against the suspects?

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be yes - the general rule is that any evidence uncovered during proper police activity is admissible, and the police taking immediate action during clearly exigent circumstances would be more or less guaranteed to be considered as such.

I hope you're wrong. This shiat has potential for abuse written all over it.

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this. It's my right to have untrained, panicked, inept government gunmen pointing assault weapons at my face.

Good. So don't have that done to yourself. How would you propose to manage that? What state doesn't have an insane, criminal gang with badges?

Your unfounded disdain for law enforcement is repulsive to most people. You are aware of this?

Amos Quito:I hope you're wrong. This shiat has potential for abuse written all over it.

Well, in my experience, he's not.

If you have authorities (police, fire, etc) in your house, due to an emergency NOT caused by you, due to pure bad luck where someone else does a crime against you and you need help and called 911, they come in (and so you "let" them in for obvious reasons) and they find a... home gardening situation that the local statues prohibit, shall we say, your ass WILL get arrested. And absolutely no sympathy will be given.

At least in IL, it will. I have no idea how it works in Massachusetts.

itazurakko:Amos Quito: I hope you're wrong. This shiat has potential for abuse written all over it.

Well, in my experience, he's not.

If you have authorities (police, fire, etc) in your house, due to an emergency NOT caused by you, due to pure bad luck where someone else does a crime against you and you need help and called 911, they come in (and so you "let" them in for obvious reasons) and they find a... home gardening situation that the local statues prohibit, shall we say, your ass WILL get arrested. And absolutely no sympathy will be given.

At least in IL, it will. I have no idea how it works in Massachusetts.

Do your children and grandchildren a favor. Don't teach them of the ideas and ideals on which this nation was originally conceived and built, or of the liberties of thought and action that we and our forebears once enjoyed - because it's OVER, dudes.

It was nice while it lasted, but regaling starving children with stories of Opulent Feasts of Plenty Past when no hope exists is nothing but cruelty.

Teach them instead that conformity, fear, deprivation, subjugation, cowering and desperation are NOBLE GOALS that they should be happy look forward to experiencing.

Extra amusing part is, you should see how much money they will claim your home gardening situation is worth. Hell, if only I had that money for realz...

/am I bitter? maybe//but the point is, you think if you're "friendly" and always sucking up all the time and you let them in like Officer Friendly then they'll look the other way because you're a "Good Citizen"? They will NOT and in fact they will laugh at your chumpy self for being so naive as to think they would.